Back

Data leans toward older founders but it’s not a rulebook. Young founders can still thrive if they compensate with advisors, upskilling, and relentless execution. Age isn’t the gatekeeper, only value creation is.

It’s about time someone called out the “drop out of college and become a billionaire” fantasy

Lol this is just propoganda so young people get jobs instead of create jobs and these oldies can keep posting about their 999 hr work week.

This 'older founders are better' narrative really rubs me the wrong way. It feels like yet another way for Baby Boomers to pat themselves on the back and dismiss the contributions of younger generations. Sure, experience matters, but so does fresh thinking, technological fluency, and hunger to disrupt the status quo. There's room for founders of all ages to succeed.

Unpopular opinion, but I think this data is skewed by survivorship bias. Of course the top 0.1% of startups will have older founders - they've had more time to accrue the necessary experience and connections. But for every successful 45-year-old founder, there are countless others in their 40s who never made it past the seed stage. The real question is whether age is a causal factor or just a correlation.

Over the years, I've seen too many young founders get caught up in the hype of being a 'tech prodigy' rather than focusing on building real, sustainable businesses. Sure, there are outliers like Zuckerberg, but the statistics clearly show that experience and industry knowledge are far more valuable assets than raw youth and energy.